Syed IMTIAZ HUSSAIN (Deceased) vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Ss — 2026 PLD 404 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Syed IMTIAZ HUSSAIN (Deceased) VS MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Ss. 96, 115 & O.XLI, R.1---Final decree in a suit for partition, appeal against---Decree sheet not prepared at the time of filing appeal---Effect on maintainability of appeal---Decree prepared during pendency of appeal---Appeal not being preferred against adecree, plea of---Decree sheet being sine qua non for maintaining appeal---Scope---Exception---Delay on the part of court staff in preparing the decree sheet---Effect---Act of court would prejudice no man---Principle---Applicability---Briefly, the applicants instituted a suit for separate possession through partition asserting that the parties were co-owners of joint property; The suit was preliminarily decreed with the consent of the parties, directing partition while maintaining their respective possessions---A local commission was appointed to conduct partition proceedings, and after objections from both sides were dismissed, a final decree was passed, subject to preparation of the decree sheet on requisite stamp paper---An appeal filed by the respondents was initially dismissed due to non-preparation of the decree sheet, whereafter the applicants applied for its preparation, resulting in the instrument of partition being prepared and the decree sheet ultimately drawn during the pendency of the appeal---The appellate court accepted the appeal leading the applicants/plaintiffs to file the present civil revision---Pivotal issue which came up before the High Court requiring determination was as to "whether the appeal was competent and maintainable in the absence of a formally prepared decree sheet, and whether limitation for filing such appeal commenced before the decree was drawn, particularly where the decree was prepared during the pendency of the appeal due to acts or omissions of the court rather than the parties?"---Held: From the joint reading of S.96 and O.XLI, R.1 of C.P.C., it was made clear that appeal in terms thereof was only competent against the decree and not the judgment---Appellate Court was though competent to dispense with the production of copy of judgment but not the decree, which was sine qua non for preferring an appeal---Applicants never provided the requisite stamp papers, enabling the Trial Court to prepare the instrument of partition and the decree sheet---Applicants for the first time moved an application for submission of stamp duty and preparation of decree sheet on 9.02.2015, which was allowed but even then the decree sheet was not prepared---There was no fault of respondents in preparation of decree---Had there been any peccadillo on the part of respondents it could not be made basis to penalize them in the shape of dismissal of their appeal---Principle "Act of court shall prejudice no man" was squarely attracted to the present case---The applicants had failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment, warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction so as to set at naught the impugned judgment---Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Syed IMTIAZ HUSSAIN (Deceased) vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Ss — 2026 PLD 404 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD